End User Agreement : India's capitulation to US interests ?

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 21 Jul 2009 01:22

This is what I had alluded to earlier. The PMO is trying to control foreign policy by having a pliant EAM. Look at the importance given to Montek singh in all aspects of the government. Looks like the kitchen cabinets are back again and this time there is no one to question them!

Apology if it comes out as a whine but what is Montek doing in the purely political setting? one more thought that keeps on coming in my head is the cancellation or stalling of the artillery guns purchase, Now I see unkil's hand through MMS in that black listing also. Is AmirKhan against us buying these critical components for IA.
Is money allocation for defense compromised too?

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 21 Jul 2009 01:30

^^^
Could it be that panda which has unkil in tight spot these days, has cut a deal wrt to India and therefore unkil is doing his level best to compromise Indian defence to make things easier for panda when it chooses to invade?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 21 Jul 2009 01:33

So what happens if a given US-supplied "system" is in a No-Foreign-Nationals restricted area? What happens if India says:

to requests by foreigners to enter?

Presumably the US will try to cut off supplies, which means, end hopes of further contracts.

OTOH, if there are defense systems that are just too new and unique to risk being shown to adversaries, isn't the US justified in insisting the right to monitor?

Why should India buy systems that come with a Trojan Horse "inspection" right - UNLESS they are so crucial to Indian national interests? And if they are, why is it so difficult to put them in a place where Americans with the right credentials can be allowed in?

The demand here seems to be what is delicately described in elegant Malloostani literature as:

Uppavinde matiyil irikkukayum venam, ummavinde ****kudikkukayum venam

U can ask Shashi Tharoor to translate that

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 01:46

They said that in a significant departure from the standard US text, the Obama administration had encouraged India to choose the venues for American inspections, even agreeing to checks in third countries.

So India can fly the planes to Singapore and have the US inspectors ensure the AESA hasn't been removed and sent to Russia?

What exactly were the MOD objections to the EUMA? Are they resolved by the third party locations?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 02:01

India's EUMA spat with the US unnecessary?

http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/58313.aspx

Why not fly in the inspectors with the shades pulled down in the passenger cabin of the aircraft. Once at the base, take them to the equipment they want to inspect in a vehicle without windows. As soon as they finish inspecting, similarly ship them out, letting the bureaucrats in Delhi wine and dine the ‘guests’.
...
Besides, security comes from strength not secrecy. Any Air Force base using recently acquired American equipment will have some American technicians stationed there for support.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 21 Jul 2009 02:08

The capitulations - they keep coming.... This just hot off the press - details still pending. Maybe its just verbal blah blah, but after this past week, I wouldnt rule anything out.

India, US plan to move ahead on Fissile Material Cut-off pact

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 210338.htm

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 21 Jul 2009 02:11

Besides, security comes from strength not secrecy.

What a laughable argument. Seems to have been written by a drunk monkey.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Jul 2009 02:15

chetak wrote: Good question!

1. Can India refuse inspections at times of hightened alert and war?
2. Can India refuse to divulge the details on the tactical use of equipment, which war theater, in conjunction with what other equipment, who mans it, testing done with it, scenario of intended use, etc.?

India can always postpone a EUM inspection.

porkis always fight terrorists in close proximity to Indian troops during war. We can also do the same, no?

Precedence has already been established by the porkis for us to easily circumvent the EUM in times of emergency.

The question is not, can we find some legal cover for taking care of our own interests, but what are we actually going to do at crunch time? Are we going to ruthlessly do what we need to do, or are going to run around exhibiting our cleverness at checking legal niceties, and precedents and asking permission from teacher because we have found such a clever excuse and workaround?

Is there any way to predict an answer to this question, other than 'gut feeling' at this time?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jul 2009 02:15

Prem Kumar wrote:The capitulations - they keep coming.... This just hot off the press - details still pending. Maybe its just verbal blah blah, but after this past week, I wouldnt rule anything out.

India, US plan to move ahead on Fissile Material Cut-off pact

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 210338.htm

In other words, sign it already. No where has he mentioned anything about India's need for keeping them at bases which US shouldnt know. What about them? A paid article to manage the expectations.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 02:25

a non-discriminatory, internationally and effectively verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty

And the devil will be in the details. The US draft treaty does not meet these conditions.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 02:26

Implications of end user agreement..hmm

1. Jernails at LOC would now have to wait for longer time as the PM and cabinet would in turn route the former's request for a clearance for use of Gunships or Air power to Pentagon .

2. The MRCA deal goes to Ef solah or atraahh ;

Ok enough of jokes...on a serious note US policy of containing India has not changed a bit only the means and methods have changed ; unlike brute force and threatening tactics akin to 70's or eighties Unkil can now actually ensure that India's capability to mount pre-emptive or even a retialitory strikes would be hampered if it manages to coax MMS into buying key weapons platforms (MRCA and even the IA's SPHs) from Unkil an an EUA on such critical platforms would render them useless and susceptible to Unkil's arm twisting tactics .

All in all next time there is a 26/11 MMS and Co will have a genuine reason for inaction .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jul 2009 02:41

End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services Commercial Exports FY 2007

Very interesting stuff.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 02:42

End-Use Monitoring Third Party Transfer of U.S.-Origin Defense Equipment
http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Research/Pres ... onitor.ppt

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jul 2009 02:44

End Use Monitoring of U.S. defense articles

SEC. 1550. END-USE MONITORING OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE SERVICES.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 02:49

NRao wrote:End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services Commercial Exports FY 2007

Very interesting stuff.

Those case studies of "South Asian Military" violations make interesting reading.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Jul 2009 02:49

Gerard wrote:India's EUMA spat with the US unnecessary?

http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/58313.aspx

Why not fly in the inspectors with the shades pulled down in the passenger cabin of the aircraft. Once at the base, take them to the equipment they want to inspect in a vehicle without windows. As soon as they finish inspecting, similarly ship them out, letting the bureaucrats in Delhi wine and dine the ‘guests’.
...
Besides, security comes from strength not secrecy. Any Air Force base using recently acquired American equipment will have some American technicians stationed there for support.

What if they have a GPS recorder stuck up their musharrafs?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jul 2009 02:54

Gerard wrote:End-Use Monitoring Third Party Transfer of U.S.-Origin Defense Equipment
http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Research/Pres ... onitor.ppt

Page 18:

Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) enacted in 1996 (Public Law 104-164)
The President shall establish a program that provides for End-Use Monitoring in order to improve accountability with respect to Defense articles sold, leased, or exported under the AECA or FAA.
Requires, to the extent practicable, monitoring of U.S. arms transfers by providing “reasonable assurance” that recipients comply with USG export control requirements regarding the use, transfer, and security of defense articles and services.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jul 2009 02:56

Then:

Communication Security (COMSEC) Equipment
STINGER Missiles and Gripstocks
Night Vision Devices
JAVELIN Missiles and Command Launch Units
TOW-2B Missiles
AMRAAM (AIM-120)
AIM-9X Advanced Sidewinder Missiles
SLAM-ER
Harpoon Block II (JASSM) (JSOW under consideration)

Pakis have all those (??). So, they have permission to use it in anger ------ from POTUS nonetheless.

and,

Tomahawk Missile

Gift from Mr. President Clinton to the Islamic nation of Pakistan and Communist state of China.

Clinton forgot to sign a EUM for Tomahawk.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 03:40

USG export control requirements regarding the use

Has there ever been a US objection to the use of armaments it supplied in any conflict between states? Did the US complain when Argentina used the General Belgrano (or any of its US equipment) during the Falklands? What about the equipment it sold the UK?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jul 2009 03:57

Gerard wrote:
USG export control requirements regarding the use
Has there ever been a US objection to the use of armaments it supplied in any conflict between states? Did the US complain when Argentina used the General Belgrano (or any of its US equipment) during the Falklands? What about the equipment it sold the UK?

It is not about that. It is more about how we do inventory control. They are asking for them to be able check them even in the forward/any bases, if they are in use there at any time they demand- where as we are talking about showing paper trial. This is the major sore point.

Ofcourse, when the leased PNS ghazi was itself used in a war, (apart from the risk of non-supply of spare parts- which is the highest) I do not think that using them in AN actual war will be difficult.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 04:02

According to one news report

They said that in a significant departure from the standard US text, the Obama administration had encouraged India to choose the venues for American inspections, even agreeing to checks in third countries.

so what then is the problem? What MOD objections remain?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Jul 2009 04:09

US clause not new, bid now to cut red tape

...
But a senior Indian official said: “It is arrangement, not an agreement”, drawing a distinction between a common understanding and a process that concludes with the signing of a document.

If indeed India has agreed in principle to such verification, it is not the first time New Delhi has signalled its willingness to allow intrusive inspections of US-origin equipment in its arsenal.
...
Krishna and Hillary have left it to diplomats to work out the fine print of the “letters of acceptance” that have to be exchanged.

Officials would not say how they are working around the sensitive issue of “physical on-site verification” — inspection of American military systems with India at the place where they are located.
...
...
The current discussions between India and the US were for an “omnibus” EUVA, at India’s insistence, that will cover all future imports of US military equipment and, therefore, do away with the bureaucratic delay involved in negotiating the agreement for each transaction.
...
...
The inspections of military equipment that the US exports are required under its Arms Export Control Act and its Foreign Assistance Act. The laws were further strengthened in the 1990s after the US could not account for the exports of Stinger shoulder-fired missiles channelled to the Afghan Mujahideen through Pakistan in their war against Soviet occupation.

In course of time, the Stinger came to be used against US forces post-2001.
...
...
Under the Blue Lantern programme, inspectors verify equipment sold by a company to the buyer — for instance in the case of P8I Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft that India has contracted with Boeing.

Under the more intrusive “Golden Sentry” mechanism that governs exports under the Foreign Military Sales — or government-to-government — deals, US inspectors will want to verify the use of US military equipment from “cradle-to-grave”, that is, from the time of their despatch to their delivery, to their use and to their eventual disposal. This requires “physical onsite verification” and makes security officials in the Indian establishment touchy.
...
...
Among the major projects/equipment that have been delivered by the US for which New Delhi has accepted the conditions of end-use monitoring — despite its reluctance — on a case-by-case basis are:

1)12 AN/TPQ 137 Firefinder weapon-locating radars (made by Raytheon) contracted for $146 million in April 2002 (by the NDA government).

2) USS Trenton, now the INS Jalashva, landing platform dock, sold by the US to the Indian Navy in 2006 for about $48.44 million.

3) Three Boeing Business Jets for VVIP transports with the Indian Air Force headquarters communication squadron contracted for about $937 million plus an additional $40 million for self-protection suites. The aircraft were delivered and are now in use.

4) Six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules transport aircraft for special operations contracted in 2008 for $1 billion.

(All the above are under the “Golden Sentry” programme.)

5) Eight Boeing P8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft contracted for the Indian Navy for about $2.2 billion in January this year and selected through a competition in which Boeing pipped EADS Casa’s Airbus 319. (under the Blue Lantern programme).

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jul 2009 04:10

Gerard wrote:According to one news report
They said that in a significant departure from the standard US text, the Obama administration had encouraged India to choose the venues for American inspections, even agreeing to checks in third countries.
so what then is the problem?

We have the initial EUMA which has many conditions, what you have written is hear say. Let us see the final draft. If it is a new draft, they will have to go to US congress about it. I dont expect our govt to be truthful to us anyway. It will only come out in US congress.

What is the reason that the defence ministry is against signing it? There must be definite some no-no conditions.

I dont know if the problem is, they asking to assemble all 126 planes to the venue when we are inspecting, cost of it and the resultant security deficit, knowledge which others gain about our deployment pattern and so on.

If the french or the Russians are not asking for the same. Then why so special with US?

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 04:15

Invoking or using the EUA as a part of arm twisting maneuver is solely up to Unkil's discretion ; given the former's obsession with J&K and new found interest in the Indian sub continent such an eventuality cannot be ruled out.

Equipping Pak was a key part of US foreign policy it was a clear indication of Unkil's intentions about containing India so no question of EUA over there .And more over for time being even if I were to assume TSP has signed some EUA with Unkil are we advocating an equal equal here ...hain ?

India's case is different US has deliberately tried to delay some of our key acquisitions in the past by pressurizing the supplier country and the way we have been cornered in the past in 74 and 98 and embargo's being enforced by Unkil it makes little sense to buy any defense equipment with any sort of EUA from USA.

To me Unkil is trying to make up for the whatever leverage it lost during the Indo-US nuke deal by trying to sell its gear along with the EUA and there by still maintain a significant control over Indian policy making.

As it is in plain and simple terms WTF should a anyone buy anything from Unkil if it has to adhere to latter's terms of use ? and is US admin full of idiots if this EUA is indeed an insignificant and inconsequential piece of paper .Afaik once the stuff is 'SOLD' the seller seizes to have any right what so ever over the commodity and when it comes to critical entities like weapons platforms this aspect assumes even greater significance for obvious reasons.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 04:22

Invoking or using the EUA as a part of arm twisting maneuver is solely up to Unkil's discretion ; given the former's obsession with J&K and new found interest in the Indian sub continent such an eventuality cannot be ruled out.

And the first attempt to do so would seal the fate of all future US arms deals with India.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 04:37

^ Only if we will be in a position to make that decision ; until now there is just one Trenton , in future once the % of US procured platforms increases US will definitely enjoy that leverage.Sometimes I wonder how come all US sourced platforms are procured without going though multi vendor tenders or even a decade long trial like the other deals.

My question is why do we even want to concede this much ground ; is it justified ? instead of using the logic ..oh everyone has similar agreement with US ; why don't we think on the lines of why is EUA required if it is of no major consequence to US or us ?

Amongst the P-5 apart from Unkil's poodle UK other three are pretty much self reliant in terms of weapons design and manufacture (ok...PRC does import some critical IP from west but afaik without any EUA or similar crap).

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 05:02

If every customer of US equipment has to sign an EUMA, then if India wishes to buy same, it also has to sign.

The US does have legitimate interests in ensuring that it's equipment is not shipped off somewhere where it can be copied.
India has legitimate interests in ensuing that it has freedom of action.

If the US is untrustworthy, if the EUMA is burdensome, then the solution is simple: buy no more US equipment.

Has the US been anointed as single vendor supplier? Won't India buy French, German, Russian, UK, Israeli, Ukrainian, Brazilian etc equipment in the future?
Doesn't this sort of multi-origin acquisition lower the risk of blackmail?

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 05:23

Adhering to 'xyz' norm just because it is a Law in US is nonsensical in this case ; ofcourse NATO countries adhere to Unkil's chutzpah but then India is not just any other NATO country and last I checked we have been blessed with such nice neighbors along with understanding US administration this added overhead of EUA to me is a strict no no .

The US does have legitimate interests in ensuring that it's equipment is not shipped off somewhere where it can be copied.
India has legitimate interests in ensuing that it has freedom of action.

I don't think the part bolded is their major concern for it is not practically possible for them to verify the whereabouts of each and every entity for 365 days a year.

If the US is untrustworthy, if the EUMA is burdensome, then the solution is simple: buy no more US equipment.

TRUST... that is not something which US enjoys in Indian circles ...at least History does not not have many glowing examples of their any such deeds.

EUMA is ofcourse burdensome and India is too large a Market to ignore infact largest in the world today (PRC is not gonna import complete platforms in the future as their inouse technology and government machinery is pretty efficient when it comes to sourcing off shelf components from OEM's and leave the rest to Chengdu and Co).

I don't know why should not India throw its weight around (if it has any) and seek concessions on this EUA stuff ; after all there are others who will happily sell to us other than US .

Doesn't this sort of multi-origin acquisition lower the risk of blackmail?

Last time there was a major bruhaha over Sea King spares , I can only imagine what would happen if US pulls off a similar stunt on p-8I or even TRENTON.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 05:36

Adhering to 'xyz' norm just because it is a Law in US is nonsensical in this case

US manufacturers and the US Government are obliged to follow their laws.

India is not such a huge defense market that the US will change their laws to exempt India. They don't do it for any other customer, even those with deep pockets like the Japanese.

The choice is simple... accept an EUMA or don't buy the shiny US toys.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 05:44

^ Sir I will desist from posting more on this as I believe I have not much to contribute until we see some new development in the media; however comparasion with Japan and likes does not sound appropriate as latter's threat perception and relationship with USA is at a different level perhaps not even equalled by the UK.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jul 2009 05:45

US `gets' right to inspect defence equipment, tech sold to India

The EUMA text agreed to by the two nations apparently upholds the right of US to physically inspect defence equipment and technology sold to India. India, in turn, got the concession that the time and place of such verification would be decided by New Delhi, as also that the standardised text cannot be altered without joint consultations if there is any change in US laws in the future.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2009 05:49

RaviBg wrote:Beyond Bill and Bush Hillary pledges higher plane for ties; arms pact elusive

...
But the secretary of state could not carry home a signed agreement that would have allowed the US to meet a domestic requirement and let American companies bid for multi-billion dollar defence deals in India.

Choosing their words carefully, both sides suggested they had “reached”, not signed, an agreement on the end-use verification pact that will allow the US to verify how India is using the military equipment it buys from America.
...

Statements in Delhi and Washington this evening implied that some differences on the agreement were still to be ironed out. “It is an arrangement, not an agreement,” an Indian official said – a distinction which found echo in a fact sheet issued by the state department in Washington.
...

On transfer of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies that had come under a cloud after a G8 statement, she said: “We don’t oppose such transfers to India, there is now a basis for it which is, of course, the civilian nuclear deal.”

She was quick to attach general US concerns on the issue, saying: “But we are opposed to unauthorised and inappropriate transfers which can take place. There is a right way to do it and a very wrong way. We are seeking advice from India on how to prevent such unauthorised and dangerous transfers.”
...

So nothing was signed but lot of smoke and mirrors.

Will keep the thread open for a few more days to hear all the opinions.

ramana

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 21 Jul 2009 05:53

^^^
Now I am really

... are we going to sign the damn thing or not ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jul 2009 06:17

Yeah. I am

.

No signing of agreement. Only "both sides suggested they had “reached”, not signed, an agreement on the end-use verification pact"

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Jul 2009 06:19

The MEA statement was very clear on this too. I had mentioned earlier in my post that the MEA statement said "both sides reached agreement" and NOT "both sides signed agreement". It may still be signed, probably before MMS' visit to DC. But for now, it isn't.

Our DDM is clueless as usual, all of them saying "India signs 3 agreements" while in reality, only one has been signed.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 21 Jul 2009 06:34

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

RaviBg wrote:
rediff link wrote:Those close to 7 Race Course Road disclose that the decision to bring in three comparatively new and inexperienced ministers, Krishna, Shashi Tharoor [ Images ] and Parneet Kaur was deliberate and well thought out by the PM, as it gave Dr Singh along with the NSA, to run the foreign policy.

Which effectively what has been happening since the UPA government took charge with Krishna more and more looking like a tenant rather than a landlord in his own ministry.
This is what I had alluded to earlier. The PMO is trying to control foreign policy by having a pliant EAM. Look at the importance given to Montek singh in all aspects of the government. Looks like the kitchen cabinets are back again and this time there is no one to question them!

Then why this kitchen cabinet style type decision making?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jul 2009 06:52

er - has India agreed to let the US know how it intends to use Indian made, Russian made, French and other equipment as well apart from US equipment?

If not I see no problem - or not much of a problem.

If India agrees to inspection of use of stuff bought from the US then India will have to fully equip itself with US stuff, as we did with Russian stuff to allow ourselves to be screwed royally by the US. It is another matter that forum members might predict that India is now going to re equip wholly with US equipment.

I would like to see that starting to happen first before judging what is lost and what is not.

India first has to buy significant amounts of hardware from the US and then those will be subjected to verification.

Where does India and BRF and the US stand now?

1) The US has some darned good equipment. There is no military thread you visit where people are saying "junk", "rust bucket" etc about US equipment.

2) Almost any discussion threads ask why India cannot follow a US type arms system or purchase US arms which would be best for any given purpose. I have sometimes enjoyed opposing a US arms system merely because it sure as hell invoked censure and criticism like a ton of bricks. No disputing what people feel is the source of the world's best military equipment

3) With the above two facts why has India not bought from the US? Because the US has traditionally refused India point blank in requests for arms, while supplying cold war ally Pakistan with arms. Whether or not the US signed any agreements with Pakistan - the US has invariably sanctioned Pakistan during times of conflict, and there is every likelihood that the US will apply sanctions similarly on India too, in the even of any conflict in which US made arms sold to India are being used by India

4) What does India want now? India wants US arms. India would like to use those arms for absolutely anything - even attacking and sinking a US ship if necessary.

5) What does the US want? The US wants to make money selling arms to India, but does not want to see those arms being used for anything that hurt US interests. They are the sellers, we are the people who are slobbering. They set the rules. If the US were beggars selling junk buckets we could have a bargain - but it does not look like that.

6) So what is the issue here?

It is pretty simple. Beggars CAN be choosers. If India (the beggar) does not want to have any US restriction of the use of arms - India must not buy US arms. Or else..India must sign on the dotted line. Comprendez?

Where is the difficulty in understanding this? Does it get so difficult to swallow one's ego and come down from a high horse imagining that India is somewhere way up there with the big boys. India is not. The sooner we know our place in the world the better. It is only when we think we can talk to the US as equals that we have to beat our breasts and wail and every handshake between a US and India entity as seems to have become the norm on here despite the inclusion of a whine thread in the hijab forum. This thread, like the last sharam therad are both a long series of moans and have absolutely no reason to be separate from the whines thread.

Three whines threads on BRF? wtf? And two of them whining that India ain't shining. So what's new? The problem was in imagining that India was bigger that it is. It is not. I am personally comfortable with that fact.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Jul 2009 07:21

shiv,
I am not quite sure if India wants to buy US arms with any condition that comes with it. The Americans have said clearly that India had agreed to buy American weapons in order to get the nuclear deal passed. So, Americans are demanding that India sign the EUVA and buy American weapons.

The end user agreement has something that India was not signing for a while and the defence minister has strong objections to it. That is why it is controversial. It appears that India is being forced to buy American weapons with certain intrusive strings attached.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Jul 2009 07:28

Look at the Telegraph article that I have posted earlier. India has already signed the EUM agreement individually for the items bought, which include the weapon locating radars and C130-j aircraft ( and also for P-8i maritime recon aircraft). The current agreement is an umbrella agreement for all future purchases, so that when new weapons are purchased from US, it will be subject to this agreement, instead of spending time negotiating it again and again.

So why did India go in for these US arms knowing fully well that it had to submit to these agreements?

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Jul 2009 07:41

Maybe some people in GoI think it is OK to sign the EUVA and buy American arms. Or the urge to get the nuclear deal at any cost at that time would have sidestepped these issues.